Raynor Mfg. Co. v. Raynor Door Co., Inc.

Full title: RAYNOR MFG. CO., Plaintiff, v. RAYNOR DOOR CO., INC., KELLY STONER, and…

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Dec 10, 2007

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-2421-CM (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-2421-CM.

December 10, 2007

ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge

This trademark infringement action is before the court on defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19). Defendants do not specify under which rule they seek dismissal, but they appear to proceed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Defendants' motion relies almost entirely on matters outside of the pleadings. But when the court considers a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), it considers only the pleadings. "All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true." Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10^th Cir. 1984). The issue in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support his claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Taking the allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true, defendants have given the court no valid reason to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is denied.